Behold whiz kids plotting the salvation of the masses.
Prescribing how the government should ease the recession, Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz writes, “What is clear is that tax cuts will not help much.” There is no brighter red flag for approaching silliness than a preachy “intellectual” calling something “clear.” Stiglitz claims that tax cuts “would be less effective than, say, spending on infrastructure.”
“Clearly” then, we should ignore that FDR turned a recession into the Great Depression by raising taxes and “spending on infrastructure.” We shouldn’t hesitate to embrace the same panaceas offered by Obama. Author Daniel J. Flynn writes,
[FDR] gave people hope, provided national catharsis by railing against the haves on behalf of the have-nots, and created an illusion of recovery through [various] agencies [and] frantic activity…
Eerie enough? How long before the mainstream media paints the same profile of Barrack Obama and the donkeys grazing the Hill despite a growing body of research showing that FDR’s fixes fixed nothing.
The New Deal prevented recovery by financing “stimulus” through borrowing and increased taxes. Sound familiar? It took WWII-related manufacturing to end the Great Depression. Should we “hope” for another major conflagration, or will our Hope Monger-in-Chief repeal the laws of economics to save us?
Professor Stiglitz singles out a study which supports tax cuts and complains that it has “little to say about the situation the world now faces.” To Stiglitz and class warfare-oriented Democrats, such proclamations impersonating “proof” show that only spending can ease the recession. The professor has made use of a well-worn liberal adage: By criticizing that which proves you wrong, you prove yourself right. Such is the genius of liberal “thought.”
Financial Times columnist Clive Crook agrees that we can spend our way to recovery. Crook blasts George W. Bush for excessive spending and debt, while knocking opponents of Obama’s stimulus for wanting less spending and debt! That’s right. Ideologues can’t even sense when they’ve defeated their own arguments. Individual, corporate, and governmental deficit spending has finally killed the economy, so let’s borrow and spend until we’re blind. We’ll be saved.
Crook writes that “once the economy has recovered”—magically, we presume—higher taxes will pay the debt. The columnist has hit on a stroke of genius. Use a tactic which could kill the recovery to boost the recovery. Crook looks for “rabid” Democrats to raise taxes “on a point of principle, regardless of the fiscal outlook.” If Dems really do take this route, it will be entertaining: A wealth redistributionist President trying to conjure up an appearance of recovery while restraining a foaming-mouth, wealth redistributionist Congress anxious to punish the very taxpayers who could spark recovery.
Professor Stiglitz meanwhile contends that “increased unemployment benefits have the largest multiplier effects… and meet vital social needs.” So we should give no relief to high-earners and businesses, thus sacrificing new jobs which both would have provided had their incomes not been plundered. Award the plunder to unemployed people who’d rather take said plunder than said jobs. The ingenious strategy would meet “social needs.”
In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg writes that “ever since the New Deal, liberals have been unable to shake this fundamental dogma that the state can be the instrument for a politics of meaning that transforms the entire nation into a village.” Enlightened ones don’t abandon baseless feel-good dogma just because that dogma inspires worthless tactics. See, worthlessness warrants yet more feel-good “fixes” to relieve feelings of helplessness due to the worthlessness. It’s a feel-good frenzy, for goodness sake.
Stiglitz writes that “household tax cuts, except for possibly the poorest, should have no place in the stimulus. Nor should business tax breaks…” Now we’re impressed. A professor, a columnist, and Democrats agree. Don’t cut taxes for anyone who would spend to boost the economy. Cut taxes for people who will use the extra cash to pay down bills, leaving nothing to actually spend. The economy will stink even worse, but liberals across the land will be giddy.
An interviewer asked Stiglitz why debt-financed spending would ease a crisis spawned by debt-financed spending. Whence came this gem: “In the long run, we’ll have to address the problem of debt…” But for now, it’s “clear.” The path to economic solvency is lined with unprecedented borrowing and spending to advance the liberal dream agenda.
And Bozo shrugged.
